[OSM-legal-talk] PD vs SA: The eternal battle

[Nic Roets]

On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 6:49 PM, Peter Miller <peter.miller at itoworld.com>wrote:

>
> My company (Ito World Ltd) needs to be able to combine Share-Alike data
> from
> OSM with copyright data from other sources ...


IMHO "Other sources" are usually incompatible with SA.


>
> software and produce rendered images or conclusions that we can sell (and
> not have to give away for free). Without an expectation that the new
> licence
> will allow this then ITO would not be participating in the project. For the


PD, CC-SA and presumably the new license all allow this.


>
> avoidance of doubt I fully expect commercial users of the data to be
> required to make their improvements to the OSM dataset itself back to the
> community and we are trying to get a set of words together to ensure that
> these distinctions are as clear as they can be in the licence (although
> there will of course be grey areas on the boundaries, which is why the Use
> Cases are so important).


Mathematicians warn us against Use Cases. With PD, no Use Cases are needed
and legal fees are less.


I remind councils and other people interested in the project that there is
> no reason why they can't pay people to work on OSM. There is some funny
> idea
> that because it is an open-source project and that the results are free
> that
> people have to do it in their spare time. This is clearly not the case with
>


Much more true than funny.

What's also true is that they don't update OSM because they don't see any
benefit. This will offcourse change if OSM becomes either
* the dominant online map (like wikipedia being the dominant online
encyclopedia) OR
* an upstream source for other maps, which isn't very likely under SA.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/attachments/20081025/196c0a8e/attachment.html>